tv [untitled] July 6, 2013 7:30pm-8:01pm PDT
don't understand anything other than that. >> and i appreciate the points that you are raising. the concern that we have is that we are going into a budget that we know that if we have no salary savings, we would be at a deficit, right? i don't believe that that is a good business model. >> so it is salary savings. >> it is 270 would entail that as people leave, that we would not be backfilling certainty, two positions and whether at that time of year that will occur. and the one of the things that we try to do is that we try to perhaps reach an agreement that we met somewhere in the middle, you know, somewhere in the midway here and that was not possible. and the budget analyst refused to reduce... >> and we believe, that it is just not wise for us to say
that we are okay with this reduction, and understanding that it would be under funding or currents. >> mr. chairman, and members of the committee, you heard the district attorney state that he is acknowledging that a portion of our cut is correct. he is saying that there could be a compromise, we compromise all of the time with the departments. which you see, during this budget process. and the reason why we didn't agree is because our numbers back up what we are stating. but at the minimum, the district attorney is stating that some portion of our recommendations is correct. >> okay. >> so, let me suggest this. and we are do one of two things, we can have a roll call vote right now and on this recommendation, and then come back and i would suggest that we break for lunch and so the fire department can continue to work out the numbers. or we can go to lunch right now and supervisor breed, if you want further explanation from the district attorney office to decide after lunch.
>> just quickly, there is no, i mean there is no further discussions between the budget analyst office and the district attorney? they are just basically i pay this and you pay this... >> so supervisor breed, the case right now, i think that we have options that we can do and take the budget analyst recommendations at full and we can take it at half. and we can do something. >> i would like to take a break before we move forward with that. >> why don't we do this then, why don't we so we have time to understand what the budget analyst and the fire department, why don't we have a one-hour recess for lunch? and so we will come back at 2:15 and take up the fire department district attorney at that time. thank you. >>
>> good afternoon, welcome back to the meeting, and we are continuing with item 6 and 7, we have the fire department and other departments out, i will call the fire department first. >> good afternoon, chairs, and members of the committee, we have worked with the budget analyst and happy to have reached an agreement. >> okay. mr. rose? >> mr. chairman, members of the committee. chief, is correct, on page 16 of our report, where we had a total including the unspended and the recommend now is to reduce the amount by $703,648,
and in fiscal year, 1415, where we had previously reported 869,751, we recommend that you reduce the budget by 508,008. >> okay. >> and colleagues any questions for mr. rose or the chief? >> okay. seeing none, could i have a motion to set the budget analyst recommendations. so moved and we could do that without opposition. >> thank you, thank you, chief. >> thank you. >> oh, and excuse me, hold on, actually. and item number two we need to take public comment on? >> correct. >> yes. if there is any members of the public that would like to comment. could i have a motion to move forward to the full board with recommendation. >> we can do so without opposition. >> i am going dao fast here. >> is that the fire department supplemental? >> correct. >> and yes, as i understand it, the department has concured
with our recommended reduction of 19,894 dollars. >> could i have a motion to accept the recommendations on item two and do so without opposition and move item two as amended to the full board and do so without opposition. >> thank you, chief and mark. >> and last up we have the district attorney attorney's office and thank you for staying. >> good afternoon, committee members, we are still where we were before we left off. >> okay. >> colleagues, any further discussion on this item? >> okay. so there is a certain amount in dispute and a certain amount, mr. rose, could you clarify, there is an amount in dispute, could you clarify what is not
in dispute. >> we will take a motion to approve that first the >> actually it is $446 stsh 317 is the recommendation and that included the 270,638. and if i have done this real quickly, 175 stsh 680 should not be in dispute and 13, 14. >> somebody might want to check this. >> excuse me, 446,318, was
>> sorry. we are doing them over here. >> 175,680. >> and 100,344 is still correct on year two? >> okay. >> does that sound right? >> yes. yes. >> colleagues, could i have a motion to approve the budget recommendation of 175,680 in year one and 100,244 in year two, and we can move and do that without opposition and... >> commissioner, earlier to have a vote on that. and what we just cut out of the budget of 270,000.
>> okay. >> or, for the attrition savings? >> yes. >> mr. chairman, could i just... i would just like all of the committee members to know, on that 276,638. the district attorney office did propose to us that they can do without $100,000 of that amount or $170, 638. that is not my recommendation to you, my recommendation to you is still the same amount, but the district attorney office in negotiations with us, as with the district attorney stated today, we did not agree with the negotiation, they were willing to concede, $100,000 less which would have made our amount of 276, 038, 176,038. >> and so mr. rose mentioned it, mr. district attorney, if it was not the full amount, would there be a meeting of the minds. >> yes, we did agree, to give
off $100,000, now i am not sure, and i am not going to argue, with just the numbers are 270,638. and we will give back 100. >> okay. >> no, i get it, but there is $100,000. but we are willing to go for $100,000. >> okay. >> so they are willing to give up to make it $100,000 less, which would have been 170,638 instead of 270. >> what we will do is have a roll call vote on the full amount and if that does not pass we will have a roll call volt. >> supervisor weiner? >> or we could just come up with accommodation right now or either way. >> roll call vote? >> i think that there is a desire to have a roll call vote. >> it appears that we are talking about just 100 and
fiscal year, 13, 14, and nothing in 14, 15. >> no it is the same thing in 14, 15, the way that they agreed to 100,344. but we continue to recommend the additional 275,04 they said this they would accept a $100,000 less reduction, or instead of 207, 504, in 14, 15, 104,504. so they have agreed to a recommendation. it is not just the amount that we are recommending to you >> why don't we have a roll call vote on supervisor avalos motion to accept the full budget recommendations of an additional 270,628 in year one. >> on that motion. >> mar? >> aye. >> avalos?
>> aye. >> supervisor breed. >> no. >> breed, no. >> supervisor weiner? >> no. >> supervisor farrell? no. >> the motion fails. >> the motion fails. we have a separate motion supervisor weiner? >> i make a motion to cut $100,000. >> in year one and year two? >> yes. >> okay. >> and do you have... >> mr. chairman, monique and i am not sure that supervisor weiner that is not the proposal that mr. rose had just stated that he was... what he stated is that they were willing to cut the 170,000. >> no i know that there is a miscommunication and i heard that they were willing to cut $100,000. >> we were willing to cut
$100,000 for this fiscal year, 13, 14, under the 100,000 for 14, 15. >> i think that there was such some lack of klartty in the dialogue before but the motion to cut $100,000 from year one and $100,000 from year two. >> made the motion and could we do that without opposition? >> yes. >> okay. >> so moved. >> thank you, mr. district attorney. >> thank you very much. >> okay, colleagues. we are through with our departments and item 6 and 7. and at this point in time, we do have gone through item 6 and 7, so and we have schedule meeting tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. but we need to do some continuation and work here. so mr. clerk, just so to be clear and the state attorney, item one we sent forward to the full board. item two, we sent forward to
the full board. item three, we need to hold over until tomorrow, so i believe that we are going to go into recess with that. 4 and 5 not acted on and 6 and 7 will continue to tomorrow morning. >> okay. and so we have to action on item 6 and 7 and 3,; is that correct?? >> so, mr. state attorney? >> i believe that you want to take action on 6 and 7 to continue those to tomorrow. >> right. >> and then you want to take a motion to go into recess to reconvene tomorrow morning to consider item three. >> okay. so first colleagues, could i have a motion to continue items 6 and 7. >> so moved. >> tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m.. >> i can do so without opposition. >> and then, mr. state attorney, is there any more detail that we need on this motion to recess item number three? >> the board's roll of order required that you take a motion, and identifying specifically which items will be continued and then all of
the other items the clerk will process as decided items on the agenda. >> so we will have a motion to go into recess on item number three specifically. okay? >> colleagues could we do so without opposition? >> okay. so moved. >> okay, mr. clerk, are there any other items before us. >> that completes the agenda. >> we are ajournd. >> chairman, we are recessed. >> sorry, we are recessed. >> thank you.
>> good morning today is june 28th, and what a fine morning it is, this is the local agency formation, of the city of san francisco, and we would like to thank my colleagues for being here, my name is john avalos i am the chair and to my right is david camp os and london breed and across the aisle is eric marr. madam clerk, could you call the next item? >> call the roll, or the commissioners who are absent, or some are on the way and we will excuse those who are not here later on the agenda. and if you could call the next
item. >> approval of at proval from the april, 26th, 2013, regular meeting. >> colleagues any comments or questions on the minutes? >> okay. we can go on to public comment. on the minutes? we will close public comment. and colleagues could we get a motion to approve the minutes? >> so moved. >> the question from commissioner campos and seconded by breed and we will take that without objection. >> item three, authorizing the agreement and june 30, 2014. we have a presentation from jason freed. >> jason freed's office staff, which is now what is becoming the annual update to the contract that we have with our legal services/interrum
director, to continue the contract and it is expiring at the end of the month and the staff is recommending to continue it one more year, if at any point in time, the commission wishes to terminate the contract. they do wish to terminate the contract whatsoever, as long as we give miss mill and her her law firm notice of that transaction occurring. we are no ways bound for the entire year. and we will see that we recommend $95,000 and i will use the same formula that we used last year for the contract, but, we don't spend nearly that amount of money, so if that was the desire to lower that amount of money it would be done as well. >> what we actually spent on the contract? >> sure. for, i did look those numbers up, for the fiscal year, 2011, we spill, 116,000. >> last year, we have the full fiscal year, is $75,976 and
this year we are coming in at 75,000 and we spent about 63 through the end of may and we have one more month to go and if you average it out it will come to 75,000 by the time this year is over. >> if we lower to 75. >> this year we will be 5,000 below that 75 and we should be fine with that, and i notice that there are other items on the agenda. >> and we only use the services as we need it and it is as-needed services if we are getting close to, you know, a high amount that we could usually just cut back on the hours that we asked her to utilize for us. so you could very easily fit within 75. >> okay. >> and well, i would like to do that, but if we were to
actually do, lower that contracted amount to 75, and to reflect what traditionally we spent, where does that portion of that, where we are lowering from? that stays? the over all budget? >> most of her budget, is currently spent comes from the cca side of the budgeting this last year we spent over $2,000, and in the current fiscal year for non-cca related items for her to do and so most of them come just over 2,000 so far as come out of our general fund account. >> okay. >> so she bills according to whichever account she is working on. >> great. >> i am not sure colleagues if we have a sense. and i will lower that amount, to the actual spending or keep the same amount? i want a motion to move to
$75,000. >> so moved. and that is seconded by mar and no objection. >> we have public comment on this item and we will open the floor to anyone who wants to come and speak of public comment is open. we will close public comment and recind. >> and we move to lower to $75,000. >> and we can take that without objection. >> and our next item. >> item number four, authority sizing the agreement with the management conducting llc, two, to extend to june, 30, 2013. >> and once again we try to have all of the contracts with the expires at the end of this fiscal year and this one does the same. this one is asking for an extension of the contract although we are not asking for any additional money. this is just the background,
mr. dedesy has a very good policy and regulatory background and he is actually helping sonoma with their policies and risk assessments. and the pec staff and lasco staff are asking for an extension of the contract but we are not asking for an extension of any amount of money, we currently have $25,000 and so far we spent $7,000 and he is currently doing risk assessment and review and normally most of the time over the course of the year, we are honestly, spending an hour here and there and that is mostly the pec requesting his time. and so the pec and the staff is requesting an extension of the contract but not asking for any additional money at this time to do so. >> okay. >> and this item, we can open up for public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment on item
three or four? come forward. seeing none we will close public comment. >> and colleagues, on this item, we can motion to approve? >> so moved. >> motion from commissioner campos and seconded by mar and we will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> and item number five, please? >> item five, resolution to the board of supervisors regarding... >> so, colleagues, this is a resolution that we want to approve, and we want to approve today and forward to the full board to request, the changes to the scope of work for the one staff position for the senior committee development specialist and it is actually combined in the scope of that work with the current interim executive director for lasco, for cca, and we won't be actually hiring that executive director, most of all we want
to be able to give the kind of flexibility for the current community development specialist to carry out duties here and a chance of the senior community development specialist. to carry out the duties of the office that they are aligned with what is being done beyond just the cca and to extend that to the position's work for three more years, and we will actually coincide with a lot of the still, the developmental work around cca to provide continuity for the work that has been done heretofore and to make sure that we have the staff also, watching cca through this process. and but also, continuing with the work projects as they come up, as they do. and so this will come before, and it is before this body and it will be a similar measure that we will be doing at the board of supervisors based on the result of the vote today.
>> campos? >> just a quick question, does that mean that the existing position would essentially be or become the executive officer position? >> that is the current configuration and we are not looking on bringing on, the current officer and the current will remain on as a consultant. >> and so i am very supportive of this. and i have always said that what we are very appreciative of the great work that miss miller has been doing, and that it is always, been odd to me, that the executive officer is an outside consultant for a government agency. i think that that makes sense for that role to be played by an in-house employee.
and to me, respects is that is already happening in a way. and so i think that it is, it is sort of a common sense change, it does not really add anything to the budget. and so, thank you for doing that. i'm very supportive. >> thank you, commissioner campos. >> any other comments or questions? >> this item we can open up for public comment. any member of the public that would like to comment, come forward and seeing none we will close public comment. >> and so, colleagues this item is live before us, could i have a motion to approve for the resolution? the motion from commissioner mar? seconded by commissioner campos and we will take that colleagues without objection. >> okay. madam clerk, could you call the next item. >> item 6, executive officer's
report. >> okay. >> miss miller could not be here and not much of a report. on the 9th at ten a.m. we will be having a meeting up in room 400 for those who are interested. not-to-exceed rates are on the agenda for that meeting and hopefully they will approve the rate and for our july meeting we are still planning on having the meeting at the end of the month and we are doing the educational type of workshop types of presentation done and so to talk about the ways to finance and so to better educate ourselves on what are all of the options that are available for doing the most robust build out as possible. >> july 9th will be a tuesday. >> correct. >> and very very good. colleagues any comments or questions. >> i will definitely be there on july 9th and it is really a critical meeting and we have been trying to line up this joint committee with the pac, for several months if not more
than several and so i look forward to that discussion on that day. >> okay, on the executive officer's report we could open this up for public comment? and seeing none come from the public we can close it. >> madam clerk, could you call the next item please? >> next item is public comment. >> okay. we have public comment open. and i'm holding our breath waiting for any member of the public to come and speak and we will close public comment. and the next item. >> item number eight, future agenda items. >> any ideas or issues to raise for any future work at lasco. >> this is something to keep in mind, it is as we are moving forward, and in this city, it is you know, doing its reenvisioning of the housing authority and lasco has stepped in a number of areas in the past where we have funded the
studies or additional analysis or reports and i think that to the extent that there may be a need to do something like that on the housing authority, i think that is something that we should be mindful of because one of the aspects of lasco is to help improve the effectiveness, efficiency and the operations of agencies. so, lafco and its budget to provide the tools to perhaps play a role in that. >> great, thank you, commissioner campos. >> i will be interested in exploring that as a possible areas of work. and this item, we can open it up for public comment. and seeing no member of the public come forward we can close public comment. and it is an information item. and we have taken no action and so we can go on to the next item. >> item number nine is adjournment. >> i want to wish you all a great weekend and if you are not coming back to work, a